The Thing (2011)

[Darth Waller]

Why does every single protagonist of a horror movie have to be a woman?

Because they always fall when they're running from something.

 

[Jamesways]

Ok, so tooling around on their facebook page- The Thing Prequel, I came across some interesting pics in their albums.

Possible creature concepts & models.

If this prequel maquette stuff turns out to be true, I think they're doing a hell of a job to match the look of the 82 flick.

Also, "The Thing In The Ice" Creature Design by Don Lanning
Not sure if this will be in the flick or not. Based on the original "Who Goes There" description.

Sorry for the possible Spoilers, the pics wouldn't load with the spoiler tag around them.

 

[TheObsoleteMan]

Also, "The Thing In The Ice" Creature Design by Don Lanning
Not sure if this will be in the flick or not. Based on the original "Who Goes There" description.

I'm not big on the idea of seeing the actual creature, but that's a pretty cool design. It's like a cross between something from a Lovecraft story and a 50's B movie monster.

 

[barryo]

The ending is going to be pretty crucial too - we expect them all to die other than the Thing as the dog. I'm not sure how you create a satisfying ending that ties in with the Carpenter film, since there were two guys (no girl) on the helicopter chasing the dog. If she is the lead, killing her off early might seem odd, yet I don't think any version where she lives will really work either. I think how they end it is their biggest challenge.

wouldn't the end pretty much have to be them setting off to chase the dog/thing in the helicopter?.............now they could expand on a conversation between the two in the helicopter or a titled final summary/explanation that leads to the first film & fade to black.......

of course if that's the route that is taken it's pretty much essential to have seen the first one or at least for those who haven't too see it afterward.

 

[azurepred]

Looks good, although it's essentially just the first two Thing movies again. Definitely has a been there, done that feel to it.

I never knew there was a second film? Link? details?

Just watched the trailer and it looks pretty exciting but given how the original movie began, can we assume everyone dies at the end of the film?

Looks good to me, but the hot chick almost always dies. I don't think we can assume everyone dies because, like what was already said, we only saw proof that 3 of them died in the first.

 

[azurepred]

Also, "The Thing In The Ice" Creature Design by Don Lanning
Not sure if this will be in the flick or not. Based on the original "Who Goes There" description.

Sorry for the possible Spoilers, the pics wouldn't load with the spoiler tag around them.

I like it, based on the trailer, I don't think we will see the creature that well, but I think we will get a glimpse.

 

[TheObsoleteMan]

I never knew there was a second film? Link? details?

The Thing from Another World from 1951 is the original, and then of course John Carpenter's remake. This new prequel should actually be a bit closer to the 51 version with them actually discovering the spaceship and the alien body.

 

[Megatron]

this will b hell of a barf bag movie.......love it!

 

[BuddyGus]

To me, Mary Winstead is absolutely beautiful. So I will be seeing this move for that reason alone. The fact that I love the original, and the trailer looks great are just icing on the cake.

 

[tylerdurden]

thanks for posting those pics, jamesways. some really compelling, gruesome designs there. but i'd like to see much more fkk-ed up, creative forms that the thing assumes, instead of just twisted human shapes with some random teeth and tentacles added. rob bottin's ideas were just genius: a dog's head that splits open to form a flower-like shape, a head that grows spider legs and eye stalks, etc.

as for adding women into the equation, i'm actually liking the potential from a thing-design standpoint. there's all kinds of really horrendous, borderline obscene shapes and configurations that the carpenter version obviously never got to show. and since they're keeping the R-rating (thank you!), a female thing would be a sight to behold. just use your imagination. i hope the prequel's creature designers did use theirs to the fullest...

 

[Master Wayne]

New Red Band Trailer. I really like the tone I'm feeling, but there is far too much CGI on display. Fingers crossed for more practical monster effects in the final movie. If it ends up half as good as Carpenter's film, I'll be satisfied enough.

[ame="https://youtu.be/NqnYZ1mM77U"]302 Found[/ame]

 

[meth head]

I dont know that looks pretty scary and pretty awesome to me

 

[Darth Waller]

New Red Band Trailer. I really like the tone I'm feeling, but there is far too much CGI on display. Fingers crossed for more practical monster effects in the final movie.

Sadly, I don't think we'll see much of that.

 

[The Mike]

To me, Mary Winstead is absolutely beautiful. So I will be seeing this move for that reason alone.

Interesting perspective. If she were naked in the film I'd tow this logic but if she isn't, I'd gladly watch a previous film of hers (I think she is hot as hell too) free and save myself the $11.

 

[CelticPredator]

New Red Band Trailer. I really like the tone I'm feeling, but there is far too much CGI on display. Fingers crossed for more practical monster effects in the final movie. If it ends up half as good as Carpenter's film, I'll be satisfied enough.

There is practical effects. But you can't really expect films like this today to not use CGI. As long as they're using it for things they couldn't use practical effects for, I have no problem with it.

 

[Matt S]

A friend of mine that has a connection to the production indicated to me last year to expect 20% practical effects or something. Mostly CGI, sorry all

 

[TheObsoleteMan]

____ing awesome.

 

[Master Wayne]

There is practical effects. But you can't really expect films like this today to not use CGI. As long as they're using it for things they couldn't use practical effects for, I have no problem with it.

Sure I can, considering the filmmakers had assured fans of the original that they would stick as closely to practical effects as they could to maintain a continuity and respect with Carpenter's film.

CGI is a great advancement and valuable tool in a filmmaker's bag of tricks. However far too many filmmakers rely heavily, if not entirely on it nowadays. My man Guillermo del Toro put it best, while addressing this issue, he said that CG should be "the punctuation and not the sentence."

John Carpenter's film achieved numerous astonishing and memorable visual effects without so much as one computer pixel. If this were AVATAR 2, I obviously wouldn't be complaining. However with something like a prequel to John Carpenter's The Thing, there are expectations on certain elements. Amongst the boldest elements are the practical effects that the film is still praised for today. I don't see anyone praising any CGI effects some 30 years after it's release. All that said, I'm still excited for this film.

 

[CelticPredator]

I agree with everything you said.

But still...CGI makes things easier. Humans always do what's easier.

Some don't. And those are the people that will be remembered.

Which is another reason why I like Michael Bay. He uses CGI, but will almost ALWAYS find a practical solution to the problem. :

So, I give him props for that. Most of his action in his flicks are done with real cars, and locations. Rather then green screens and stuff.

Same with Nolan. He does mostly practical. Hence why he's such a hot ticket. Del Toro as well.

 

[Cdiesel09]

I just saw the commercial on TV and it looks great. I enjoyed the first one a lot. I'm looking forward to seeing this.